Full Text

TECHNICAL Summary
INDOT Research
Technology Transfer and Project Implementation Information
TRB Subject Code:62-7 Soil Foundation Subgrades

Publication No.: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/30, SPR-2362
February 2003
Final Report
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for

Subgrade Assessment
Introduction
In-situ penetration tests have been widely used in
geotechnical and foundation engineering for site
investigation in support of analysis and design. The
standard penetration test (SPT) and the cone
penetration test (CPT) are two typical in-situ
penetration tests. The dynamic cone penetration test
shows features of both the CPT and the SPT. The
DCPT is similar to the SPT in test. It is performed
by dropping a hammer from a certain fall height
and measuring a penetration depth per blow for
each tested depth. The shape of the dynamic cone is
similar to that of the penetrometer used in the CPT.
In road construction, there is a need to assess the
adequacy of the subgrade to behave satisfactorily
beneath a pavement. A recently completed Joint
Transportation Research Program project showed
that the DCPT can be used to evaluate the
mechanical properties of compacted subgrade soils.
In the present implementation project, the
application of the DCPT is further investigated.
Present practice in determining the adequacy of a
compacted subgrade is to determine the dry density
and water content by the sand-cone method or with
a nuclear gauge. However, the use of the

resilient modulus (Mr) has become mandatory
for pavement design. To find the Mr, a timeconsuming testing procedure is required which
demands significant effort. Therefore a faster
and easier alternative for compaction control in
road construction practice is desired. To this
end, the present project aimed to take a first step
in the generation of data to create appropriate
correlations among subgrade parameters and
DCPT results.
The present research project consists
of field testing, laboratory testing, and analysis
of the results. The field testing includes the
DCPT and nuclear gauge tests. In the planning
stage, several road construction sites were
selected for the field testing. For the selected
road construction sites, both the DCPT and
nuclear tests were performed at the same
location, allowing a comparison between DCPT
and nuclear test results. Soil samples for the
selected project sites were also obtained for the
laboratory testing program.
Findings
For clayey sand classified in accordance with the
United Classification System (sandy loam
classified in accordance with INDOT standard
specifications Sec. 903), the equation for the dry
density in terms of PI can be used for predicting
d using field DCP tests.
Since such predictions using the DCPT
are subject to considerable uncertainty, DCPT
should be performed for compaction control in
combination with a few conventional test
methods, such as the nuclear gage. These can be

used to anchor or calibrate the DCPT correlation
for specific sites, reducing the uncertainty in the
predictions. Site-specific correlations do appear
to be of better quality.
The DCPT should not be used in soil
with gravel. Unrealistic PI values could be
obtained and the penetrometer shaft could be
bent.
Implementation
Results from the field testing, laboratory testing
and analysis lead to the following conclusions
and recommendations:
62-7 02/03 JTRP-2002/30
1) Field DCP Tests were performed at seven

sites. Four sites contained clayey sands, one
contained a well graded sand with clay and two
INDOT Division of Research
West Lafayette, IN 47906
contained a poorly graded sand. For each test

location, in-situ soil density and moisture
contents were measured using a nuclear gauge at
three different depths. The relationship between
the soil properties and the penetration index
were examined. Though the data shows
considerable scatter, a trend appears to exist,
particularly if each site is considered separately,
the penetration index decreases as the dry
density increases and slightly increases as
moisture content increases. It may be possible to
improve the correlation by normalizing the
quantities in a different way and by obtaining
more data.
2) For clayey sand classified in accordance with
the United Classification System (sandy loam
density was derived in terms of the PI as
follows:
'V
d = 101.5 PI 0.14
pA
0.5
where PI = penetration index in mm/blow; and

pA = reference stress (100kPa).
This equation can be used to predict d from the
measured PI value. The actual d will be in a
range defined by the calculated d
1.63 kN/m3.
3) To investigate the relationship between the
shear strength of poorly graded sand and the
penetration index, direct shear tests were
performed on samples obtained from the field.
The results of the direct shear tests also show
considerable scatter.
4) For clayey sands and well-graded sands with
clay classified in accordance with the United
Classification System (sandy loam classified in
accordance with INDOT standard specifications

Sec. 903), unconfined compression tests were
conducted. The test results show some
correlation with the penetration index (PI). It
was observed that PI decreases as unconfined
compressive strength increases. Additionally, the
resilient modulus was calculated from su at 1.0%
strain using the Lee (1997) equation. The
following correlation was developed between Mr
and PI:
Mr=-3279PI + 114100
where Mr=resilient modulus in kPa; and
PI=penetration index in mm/blow
This relationship should be used with caution
since it is derived from a very weak correlation
based on highly scattered data for different sites.
There is a need for further study to gather
sufficient data to refine this relationship into a
reliable equation.
5) For clayey sand classified in accordance with
the United Classification System (sandy loam
density in terms of PI can be used for predicting
d using field DCP tests.
6) Since such predictions using the DCPT are
subject to considerable uncertainty, DCPT
should be performed for compaction control in
combination with a few conventional test
methods, such as the nuclear gage. These can be
used to anchor or calibrate the DCPT correlation
for specific sites, reducing the uncertainty in the
predictions. Site-specific correlations do appear
to be of better quality.
7) The DCPT should not be used in soil with
gravel. Unrealistic PI value could be obtained
and the penetrometer shaft could be bent.
Contacts
For more information:
Prof. Rodrigo Salgado
Principal Investigator
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
West Lafayette IN 47907
Phone: (765) 494-5030
Fax: (765) 496-1364
62-7 07/02 JTRP-2002/20
Indiana Department of Transportation

Division of Research
1205 Montgomery Street
P.O. Box 2279
Phone: (765) 463-1521
Fax: (765) 497-1665
Purdue University
Joint Transportation Research Program
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284
Phone: (765) 494-9310
Fax: (765) 496-1105
INDOT Division of Research
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/30
4. Title and Subtitle
5.
Report Date
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment
February 2003
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Report No.
Rodrigo Salgado and Sungmin Yoon
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

1284 Civil Engineering Building
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR-2362
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

State Office Building
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Final Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract
In-situ penetration tests have been widely used in geotechnical and foundation engineering for site investigation in support of
analysis and design. The standard penetration test (SPT) and the cone penetration test (CPT) are two typical in-situ
penetration tests. The dynamic cone penetration test shows features of both the CPT and the SPT. The DCPT is performed
by dropping a hammer from a certain fall height and measuring penetration depth per blow for each tested depth. The DCPT
is a quick test to set up, run, and evaluate on site. Due to its economy and simplicity, better understanding of DCPT results
can reduce efforts and cost for evaluation of pavement and subgrade soils.
Present practice in determining the adequacy of a compacted subgrade is to determine the dry density and water content by
either the sand-cone method or the nuclear gauge. The use of the resilient modulus (Mr) has recently become mandatory for
pavement design. To find the Mr, a time-consuming test is required which demands significant effort. Therefore, a faster and
easier alternative for compaction control in road construction practice is desired. To this end, the present project is a step
towards the generation of sufficient data to create appropriate correlations between subgrade parameters and DCPT results.
The present research considers several subgrade soils at different road construction sites. Each soil is tested in the
field and in the laboratory. The field testing includes the DCPT and nuclear density gauge tests. Based on analysis of this
testing, the relationships between the DCPT results and the subgrade parameters such as unconfined compression strength
and resilient modulus are obtained.
17. Key Words
18. Distribution Statement
subgrade, dynamic cone penetration test, DCPT, cone

penetrometer, penetration resistance, dry density, moisture
content, resilient modulus
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69)
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
87
22. Price
Final Report
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment

by
Rodrigo Salgado
Principal Investigator
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
and
Sungmin Yoon
Graduate Research Assistant
Purdue University

Project No: C-36-45S
File No: 6-18-17
SPR-2362
Conducted in Cooperation with the
and the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views
or policies of the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
February 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Problem Statement ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3
Research Objective ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.4
Project Outline................................................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2.
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST AND ITS APPLICATION........................ 4
2.1
Description of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) ................................................ 4
2.2
Relationship between Penetration Index (PI) and CBR Values ................................... 9
2.3
Relationship between PI and Compaction Properties ................................................... 10
2.4
PI Shear Strength Relationship ........................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 3.
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTS ON SUBGRADE SOILS...................... 17
3.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2
Reconstruction Site of I-65 in Hobart, IN ........................................................................... 19
3.3
Reconstruction Site of US49 in Valpariso, IN.................................................................... 27
3.4
Reconstruction Site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN ...................................................................... 35
3.5
Road Widening Construction Site of US35 in Knox, IN ............................................... 44
3.6
Reconstruction Site of Lindberg Road at West Lafayette, IN .................................... 53
3.7
Reconstruction Site of I-65/County Road 100E in Lebanon, IN................................ 63
ii
3.8
Reconstruction Site of US36 in Bainbridge, IN ................................................................ 71
3.9
Analysis of the Results from Field DCP and Laboratory Tests .................................. 80
CHAPTER 4.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 86
4.1
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 86
4.2
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 88
LIST OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................. 89
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Correlations between CBR and PI (after Harison 1987 and Gabr et al.
2000) ..................................................................................................................... 12
Table 2.2 Basic properties of test materials (after Ayers et al. 1989) ................................... 15
Table 2.3 Relationship between PI and shear strength (after Ayers et al. 1989) .................. 16
Table 3.1 Test sites for DCPT ................................................................................................ 18
Table 3.2 Total and Dry Soil Densities and Moisture Contents measured from nuclear
gauge for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN .................................................................. 21
Table 3.3 Result of Unconfined Compressive Test and corresponding Penetration
Index from field DCPT for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN...................................... 22
gauge for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN ........................................................... 29
Table 3.5 Result of Unconfined Compression Test and corresponding Penetration
Index from field DCPT for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN ............................... 30
gauge for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN ............................................................. 37
Table 3.7 Result of Direct Shear Test with different normal stress for the site
of
I-80/I94 in Gary, IN ................................................................................................ 38
gauge for the site of US35 in Knox, IN .................................................................. 46
Table 3.9 Result of Direct Shear Test with different normal stress for the site of US35
in Knox, IN .............................................................................................................. 47
Table 3.10 Total and Dry Soil Densities and Moisture Contents measured from
nuclear gauge for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN ...................... 55
Index from field DCPT for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN ....... 56
nuclear gauge for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN .................... 65
Index from field DCPT for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN..... 66
ix
nuclear gauge for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN ............................................ 73

Index from field DCPT for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN ............................ 74
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Structure of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer ............................................................. 6

Figure 2.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test ............................................................................. 7
Figure 2.3 Typical DCPT results.............................................................................................. 8
Figure 2.4 PI versus compaction parameters from laboratory results (after Harison
1987) ..................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3.1 Total and Dry Soil Densities and Moisture Contents measured from
nuclear gauge for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN .................................................. 22
Figure 3.2 Log of DCPT for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN (Station: 59+395, Test No.
1) ........................................................................................................................... 23
2) ........................................................................................................................... 23
3) ........................................................................................................................... 24
4) ........................................................................................................................... 24
5) ........................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.7 Particle size distribution for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN ................................. 25
Figure 3.8 Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index from field DCPT
for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN .......................................................................... 26
Figure 3.9 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index from
field DCPT for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN ...................................................... 26
nuclear gauge for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN ............................................ 30
Figure 3.11 Log of DCPT for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN (Station: 18+850, Test
No. 1) .................................................................................................................... 31
No. 2) .................................................................................................................... 31
No. 3) .................................................................................................................... 32
iv
No. 4) .................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.15 Particle size distribution for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN ......................... 33
Figure 3.16 Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index from field
DCPT for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN ........................................................ 33
Figure 3.17 Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index from field
DCPT for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN ........................................................ 34
nuclear gauge for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN .............................................. 38
Figure 3.19 Log of DCPT for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN (Station: 342+000, Test
No. 1) .................................................................................................................... 39
No. 2) .................................................................................................................... 39
No. 3) .................................................................................................................... 40
No. 4) .................................................................................................................... 40
No. 5) .................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.24 Particle size distribution for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN ........................... 41
DCPT for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN .......................................................... 42
DCPT for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN .......................................................... 42
Figure 3.27 Result of Direct Shear Test with different normal stress for the site of I80/I-94 in Gary, IN ............................................................................................... 43
Figure 3.28 Relationship between PI and Shear Strength with different normal stress
for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN...................................................................... 43
nuclear gauge for the site of US35 in Knox, IN .................................................. 47
Figure 3.30 Log of DCPT for the site of US35 in Knox, IN (Station: 2+150, Test No.
1) ........................................................................................................................... 48
2) ........................................................................................................................... 48
3) ........................................................................................................................... 49
4) ........................................................................................................................... 49
5) ........................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3.35 Particle size distribution for the site of US35 in Knox, IN ............................... 50
DCPT for the site of US35 in Knox, IN............................................................... 51
DCPT for the site of US35 in Knox, IN............................................................... 51
Figure 3.38 Result of Direct Shear Test with different normal stress for the site of
US35 in Knox, IN ................................................................................................. 52
for the site of US35 in Knox, IN .......................................................................... 52
nuclear gauge for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN.................... 57
Figure 3.41 Log of DCPT for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN
(Station: 1+189, Test No. 1) ................................................................................. 57
(Station: 1+200, Test No. 2) ................................................................................. 58
(Station: 1+211, Test No. 3) ................................................................................. 58
(Station: 1+222, Test No. 4) ................................................................................. 59
(Station: 1+233, Test No. 5) ................................................................................. 59
(Station: 1+245, Test No. 6) ................................................................................. 60
(Station: 1+256, Test No. 7) ................................................................................. 60
(Station: 1+269, Test No. 8) ................................................................................. 61
vi
Figure 3.49 Particle size distribution for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette,
IN .......................................................................................................................... 61
DCPT for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN ................................ 62
DCPT for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN ................................ 62
nuclear gauge for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN ................. 66
Figure 3.53 Log of DCPT for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN
(Station: 72+137, Test No. 1) ............................................................................... 67
(Station: 72+137, Test No. 2) ............................................................................... 67
(Station: 72+137, Test No. 3) ............................................................................... 68
(Station: 72+137, Test No. 4) ............................................................................... 68
(Station: 72+137, Test No. 5) ............................................................................... 69
Figure 3.58 Particle size distribution for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon,
IN .......................................................................................................................... 69
DCPT for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN .............................. 70
DCPT for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN .............................. 70
nuclear gauge for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN ......................................... 74
Figure 3.62 Log of DCPT for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN (Station: 10+505,
Test No. 1)............................................................................................................. 75
Test No. 2)............................................................................................................. 75
Test No. 3)............................................................................................................. 76
vii
Test No. 4)............................................................................................................. 76

Test No. 5)............................................................................................................. 77
Test No. 6)............................................................................................................. 77
Figure 3.68 Particle size distribution for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN ...................... 78
DCPT for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN...................................................... 78
DCPT for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN...................................................... 79
Figure 3.71 Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density ................................ 82
Figure 3.72 Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index................................ 82
Figure 3.73 Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index ....................... 83
Figure 3.74 Relationship between Unconfined Compressive Strength and Penetration
Index ..................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 3.75 Relationship between su at 1.0% strain and Penetration Index ......................... 84
Figure 3.76 Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Penetration Index...................... 84
Figure 3.77 Relationship between normalized Dry density and Penetration Index ............. 85
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
In geotechnical and foundation engineering in-situ penetration tests have been

widely used for site investigation in support of analysis and design. The standard
penetration test (SPT) and the cone penetration test (CPT) are the two in-situ penetration
tests often used in practice. The SPT is performed by driving a sampler into the ground by
hammer blows uses a dynamic penetration mechanism, while in the CPT a cone
penetrometer is pushed quasi-statically into the ground. In the DCPT, a cone penetrometer
is driven into the ground, so that the DCPT shows some features of both the CPT and SPT.
Quality road construction requires an assessment of the adequacy of a subgrade to
behave satisfactorily beneath a pavement. Present practice in determining the adequacy of
a compacted subgrade is to determine the dry density and water content by the sand-cone
method or with a nuclear gauge. The use of the resilient modulus (Mr) has recently become
mandatory for pavement design. To find the Mr, a time-consuming test is required, which
demands significant effort.
The DCP is operated by two persons, and is a quick test to set up, run, and
evaluate on site. Due to its economy and simplicity, better understanding of the DCPT
results can reduce significantly the efforts and cost for evaluation of pavement and
subgrade soils. The intention of this project is to generate sufficient data to create
appropriate correlations among subgrade parameters and DCPT results.
The present research project consists of field testing, laboratory testing, and
analysis of the results. The field testing includes the DCPT and nuclear tests. In the
xi
planning stage, several road construction sites were selected for the field testing. For the
selected road construction sites, both the DCPT and nuclear tests were performed at the
same location allowing comparison between DCPT and nuclear test results. Soil samples
for the selected project sites were also obtained for the laboratory testing program.
Results from the field testing, laboratory testing and analysis lead to the following
conclusions and recommendations:
Conclusions
(1)
Field DCP Tests were performed at seven sites. Four sites contained clayey sands,
one contained a well graded sand with clay and two contained a poorly graded sand. For
each test location, in-situ soil density and moisture contents were measured using a nuclear
gauge at three different depths. The relationship between the soil properties and the
penetration index were examined. Though the data shows considerable scatter, a trend
appears to exist, particularly if each site is considered separately, the penetration index
decreases as the dry density increases and slightly increases as moisture content increases.
It may be possible to improve the correlation by normalizing the quantities in a different
way and by obtaining more data.
(2)
For clayey sand classified in accordance with the United Classification System
(sandy loam classified in accordance with INDOT standard specifications Sec. 903), the
equation for the dry density was derived in terms of the PI as follows:
'V
d = 101.5 PI 0.14
pA
0.5
xi
xii
where PI = penetration index in mm/blow; and pA = reference stress (100kPa).

This equation can be used to predict d from the measured PI value. The actual d will be in
a range defined by the calculated d 1.63 kN/m3.
(3)
To investigate the relationship between the shear strength of poorly graded sand
and the penetration index, direct shear tests were performed on samples obtained from the
field. The results of the direct shear tests also show considerable scatter.
(4)
For clayey sands and well-graded sands with clay classified in accordance with
the United Classification System (sandy loam classified in accordance with INDOT
standard specifications Sec. 903), unconfined compression tests were conducted. The test
results show some correlation with the penetration index (PI). It was observed that PI
decreases as unconfined compressive strength increases. Additionally, the resilient modulus
was calculated from su at 1.0% strain using the Lee (1997) equation. The following
correlation was developed between Mr and PI:
Mr=-3279PI + 114100
where Mr=resilient modulus in kPa; and PI=penetration index in mm/blow
This relationship should be used with caution since it is derived from a very weak
correlation based on highly scattered data for different sites. There is a need for further
study to gather sufficient data to refine this relationship into a reliable equation.
xii
xiii
Recommendations
(1)
equation for the dry density in terms of PI can be used for predicting d using field DCP
tests.
(2)
Since such predictions using the DCPT are subject to considerable uncertainty,
DCPT should be performed for compaction control in combination with a few conventional
test methods, such as the nuclear gage. These can be used to anchor or calibrate the DCPT
correlation for specific sites, reducing the uncertainty in the predictions. Site-specific
correlations do appear to be of better quality.
(3)
The DCPT should not be used in soil with gravel. Unrealistic PI values could be
obtained and the penetrometer shaft could be bent.
xiii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
In geotechnical and foundation engineering, in-situ penetration tests have been

widely used for site investigation in support of analysis and design. The standard
penetration test (SPT) and the cone penetration test (CPT) are two typical in-situ
penetration tests. While the SPT is performed by driving a sampler into the soil with
hammer blow, the CPT is a quasi-static procedure.
The dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) was developed in Australia by Scala
(1956). The current model was developed by the Transvaal Roads Department in South
Africa (Luo, 1998). The mechanics of the DCPT shows features of both the CPT and SPT.
The DCPT is performed by dropping a hammer from a certain fall height measuring
penetration depth per blow for a certain depth. Therefore it is quite similar to the procedure
of obtaining the blow count N using the soil sampler in the SPT.
In the DCPT, however, a
cone is used to obtain the penetration depth instead of using the split spoon soil sampler. In
this respect, there is some resemblance with the CPT in the fact that both tests create a
cavity during penetration and generate a cavity expansion resistance.
In road construction, there is a need to assess the adequacy of a subgrade to
behave satisfactorily beneath a pavement. Proper pavement performance requires a
satisfactorily performing subgrade. A recent Joint Transportation Research Program project
by Luo (1998) was completed showing that the DCPT can be used to evaluate the
mechanical properties of compacted subgrade soils. In the present implementation project,
the application of the DCPT is further investigated.
1.2 Problem Statement
Present practice in determining the adequacy of a compacted subgrade is to

determine the dry density and water content by the sand-cone method or with a nuclear
density gauge. This testing is done with the expectation that successful performance inservice will occur if the compaction specifications are found to be fulfilled. In addition, the
use of the resilient modulus (Mr) has also become mandatory for pavement design. To find
the Mr, another time consuming test is required which demands significant effort.
There is much interest in finding a quick positive way to assure the presence of
desired behavior parameters in a subgrade. The quality of a subgrade is generally assessed
based on the dry density and water content of soils compared with the laboratory soil
compaction test results. This connection is based on the observation that the strength of
soils and compressibility of soils is well-reflected by dry density. While the sand cone
method was a common approach to evaluate a subgrade in practice in the past, use of the
nuclear gauge is currently very popular. The nuclear gauge is quick and very convenient to
obtain the in-situ soil density and water content. However it uses nuclear power and
requires a special operator who has finished a special training program and has a registered
operating license. Therefore, a safer and easier alternative for the compaction control of
road construction practice is desired.
1.3 Research Objective
The goal of this project is to generate sufficient data to create appropriate

correlations among subgrade parameters and DCPT results. Successful completion will
allow road construction engineers to assess subgrade adequacy with a relatively quick,
easy-to-perform test procedure avoiding time-consuming testing. It is expected to cover the
range of fine-textured soils encountered in practice.
Detailed objectives are:
(1) Generation of sufficient data to allow development of initial correlations.

(2) Investigation of the relationship between DCPT results and subgrade parameters
such as soil density, water content, and resilient modulus.
1.4 Project Outline
The present research project consists of field testing, laboratory testing, and
analysis of the results. The field testing includes the DCPT and nuclear tests. In the
planning stage, several road construction sites were selected for the field testing. For the
selected road construction sites, both the DCPT and nuclear tests were performed at the
same location allowing a comparison between DCPT and nuclear test results. Soil samples
for the selected project sites were also obtained for the laboratory testing program.
Based on the field and laboratory test results, the relationship between the DCPT
results and subgrade parameters such as unconfined compression strength and resilient
modulus will be investigated.
CHAPTER 2. DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST AND ITS

APPLICATION
2.1 Description of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT)
The dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) was originally developed as an

alternative for evaluating the properties of flexible pavement or subgrade soils. The
conventional approach to evaluate strength and stiffness properties of asphalt and subgrade
soils involves a core sampling procedure and a complicated laboratory testing program such
as resilient modulus, Marshall tests and others (Livneh et al. 1994). Due to its economy and
simplicity, better understanding of the DCPT results can reduce significantly the effort and
cost involved in the evaluation of pavement and subgrade soils.
Figure 2.1 shows a typical configuration of the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP).
As shown in the figure, the DCP consists of upper and lower shafts. The upper shaft has an
8 kg (17.6 lb) drop hammer with a 575 mm (22.6 in) drop height and is attached to the
lower shaft through the anvil. The lower shaft contains an anvil and a cone attached at the
end of the shaft. The cone is replaceable and has a 60 degree cone angle. As a reading
device, an additional rod is used as an attachment to the lower shaft with marks at every 5.1
mm (0.2 in).
In order to run the DCPT, two operators are required. One person drops the
hammer and the other records measurements. The first step of the test is to put the cone tip
on the testing surface. The lower shaft containing the cone moves independently from the
reading rod sitting on the testing surface throughout the test. The initial reading is not
usually equal to 0 due to the disturbed loose state of the ground surface and the self-weight
of the testing equipment. The value of the initial reading is counted as initial penetration
corresponding to blow 0. Figure 2.2 shows the penetration result from the first drop of the
hammer. Hammer blows are repeated and the penetration depth is measured for each
hammer drop. This process is continued until a desired penetration depth is reached.
As shown in Figure 2.3, DCPT results consist of number of blow counts versus
penetration depth. Since the recorded blow counts are cumulative values, results of DCPT
in general are given as incremental values defined as follows,
PI =
D p
BC
(2.1)
where PI = DCP penetration index in units of length divided by blow count; Dp =

penetration depth; BC = blow counts corresponding to penetration depth Dp. As a result,
values of the penetration index (PI) represent DCPT characteristics at certain depths.
17.6 lbs. (8 kg) drop hammer
Upper shaft
(typically 34)
26 drop
height
Reading device
Anvil
(3.2)
Cone Tip
Lower shaft
(typically 44)
0.118
1.75
60
0.787
Figure 2.1 Structure of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
1.75
(a) Before hammer dropping
(b) After hammer dropping
Figure 2.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test
8
BC1
BC2 BC3
Blow counts
Dp1
BC
Dp2
Dp2
Dp3
Penetration
depth
(a)
Penetration Index
PI1
PI2
PI3
Penetration
depth
(b)
Figure 2.3 Typical DCPT results
2.2 Relationship between Penetration Index (PI) and CBR Values
Several authors have investigated relationships between the DCP penetration

index PI and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). CBR values are often used in road and
pavement design. Two types of equations have been considered for the correlation between
the PI and CBR. Those are the log-log and inverse equations. The log-log and inverse
equations for the relationship can be expressed as the following general forms:
log-log equation:
log CBR = A B (log PI ) C
(2.2)
inverse equation:
CBR = D(PI)E + F
(2.3)
where CBR = California Bearing Ratio; PI = penetration index obtained from DCPT in
units of mm/blow or in/blow; A ,B, C, D, E, and F = regression constants for the
relationships. Based on statistical analysis of results from the log-log and inverse equations,
Harison (1987) concluded that the log-log equation produces more reliable results while the
inverse equation contains more errors and is not suitable to use.
Considering the log-log
equations, many authors have proposed different values of A, B, and C for use in (2.2). For
example, Livneh (1987) and Livneh, M. (1989) proposed the following relationships based
on field and laboratory tests:
log CBR = 2.20 0.71 (log PI )1.5 (2.4)

log CBR = 2.14 0.69 (log PI )1.5 (2.5)
where CBR = California Bearing Ratio; PI = DCP Penetration Index. Although (2.5) was
suggested based on (2.4), differences in results from (2.4) and (2.5) are small. After further
10
examination of results by other authors, Livneh et al. (1994) proposed the following
equation as the best correlation:
log CBR = 2.46 1.12 (log PI )
(2.6)
Table 2.1 summarizes typical log-log equations suggested by different authors for the CBRPI correlation.
2.3 Relationship between PI and Compaction Properties
The CBR and DCPT have similar testing mechanisms. Thus, results from the tests
may reflect similar mechanical characteristics. Compared to work done for PI-CBR
relationships described in the previous section, investigations of the PI - compaction
properties relationships were insufficiently performed. This condition may be because the
compaction properties, including dry unit weight and moisture content, are affected by a
number of different factors. The compacted unit weight itself also depends on the moisture
content.
Although limited information concerning these relationships appears in the
literature, a typical relationship can be found in Harison (1987) and Ayers et al. (1989).
Harison (1987) performed a number of laboratory tests including CBR, compaction, and
DCP tests for different types of soils. According to Harison (1987), values of PI are a
function of both moisture content and dry unit weight. Although generalized equations for
the relationships were not proposed, certain correlations between the parameters were
observed. Figure 2.4 shows the typical trend of PI with respect to values of dry unit weight
11
and moisture content. In the figure, values of PI increase as the dry unit weight increases.
This result appears to be reasonable since denser soils would result in higher penetration
resistance.
Figure 2.4 (c) shows a trend of PI values with moisture contents corresponding to
the compaction curve. As shown in the figure, the PI value decreases with increasing
moisture contents up to the optimum moisture content (OMC) for a given compaction
energy. This point corresponds to the maximum dry unit weight for a given compaction
energy. After the OMC, PI values increase again with increasing moisture content. It should
be noted that the values of PI in Figure 2.4 (c) were obtained for the soil states following
the compaction curve. Also, although the same dry unit weight was considered, the PI
value tends to be higher for higher moisture contents.
12
Table 2.1 Correlations between CBR and PI (after Harison 1987 and Gabr et al. 2000)
Author
Correlation
Field or laboratory based study
Material tested
Kleyn (1975)
log (CBR) = 2.62 - 1.27 log(PI)
Laboratory
Unknown
Harison (1987)
log (CBR) = 2.56 - 1.16 log(PI)
Laboratory
Cohesive
Harison (1987)
log (CBR) = 3.03 - 1.51 log(PI)
Laboratory
Granular
Livneh et al. (1994)
log (CBR) = 2.46 - 1.12 log(PI)
Field and laboratory
Granular and cohesive
Ese et al. (1994)
log (CBR) = 2.44 - 1.07 log(PI)
ABC*
NCDOT (1998)
log (CBR) = 2.60 - 1.07 log(PI)
ABC* and cohesive
Coonse (1999)
log (CBR) = 2.53 - 1.14 log(PI)
Laboratory
Gabr (2000)
log (CBR) = 1.40 0.55 log(PI)
ABC*
12
*Aggregate base course
Piedomont residual soil
13
Dry unit weight

(d,max)
Moisture content
(a)
Penetration
index
Dry unit weight

(b)
Penetration
index
Moisture content (w)

(c)
Figure 2.4 PI versus compaction parameters from laboratory results

(after Harison 1987)
14
2.4 PI Shear Strength Relationship
Ayers et al. (1989) proposed a correlation between values of PI and the shear
strength of granular soils. The goal of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of the
DCPT for estimating shear strength of granular material as a quick and economical insitu testing approach. The work was done for soil samples obtained from a typical track
section. Laboratory DCP and triaxial tests were performed to obtain PI and shear
strength values, respectively. The test samples included sand, dense-graded sandy gravel,
crushed dolomitic ballast, and ballast with varying amounts of non-plastic crushed
dolomitic fines. Table 2.2 shows the basic properties of the tested materials.
Similarly to results by Harison (1987), it was observed that the values of PI
decrease as the unit weight of soils increases. Based on a series of laboratory test results,
Ayers (1989) developed correlations between the value of PI and the shear strength of
soils. Table 2.3 shows the correlations between the PI and shear strength for the
different materials and confining stress levels. It was also found that, for a given unit
weight or relative density, the values of PI decrease as the confining stress increases.
This indicates that the effect of confining stress on the penetration index of DCPT exists,
which is consistent to findings by Livneh et al. (1994).
15
Table 2.2 Basic properties of test materials (after Ayers et al. 1989)
Max. grain size
D10
D30
D60
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
0.87
4.83
0.229
0.483
1.168
80.0
1.01
25.4
0.102
0.914
8.128
2.63
1.7
0.99
38.1
18.03
23.11
29.97
Ballast with 7.5% NF3
2.63
3.0
1.67
38.1
9.906
22.09
29.46
Ballast with 15% NF3
2.63
9.2
5.22
38.1
3.048
21.08
27.94
Ballast with 22.5% NF3
2.62
15.1
8.41
38.1
1.778
20.07
26.92
GS
Cu1
Cc2
Sand
2.65
5.1
Sandy gravel
2.55
Crushed dolomitic ballast
Material
Cu: Coefficient of uniformity

Cc: Coefficient of curvature
3
NF: Non-plastic fines
2
15
16
Table 2.3 Relationship between PI and shear strength (after Ayers et al. 1989)
Material
Sand
Sandy gravel
Crushed dolomitic ballast
Ballast with 7.5% NF
Ballast with 15% NF
Ballast with 22.5% NF
Confining stress (kPa)
Correlation
34.5
DS* = 41.3 12.8(PI)
103.4
DS* = 100.4 23.4(PI)
206.9
DS* = 149.6 12.7(PI)
34.5
DS* = 51.3 13.6(PI)
103.4
DS* = 62.9 3.6(PI)
206.9
DS* = 90.7 5.8(PI)
34.5
DS* = 64.1 13.3(PI)
103.4
DS* = 139.0 40.6(PI)
206.9
DS* = 166.3 16.2(PI)
34.5
DS* = 87.2 78.7(PI)
103.4
DS* = 216.1 213.9(PI)
206.9
DS* = 282.1 233.2(PI)
34.5
DS* = 47.5 0.45(PI)
103.4
DS* = 184.2 215.5(PI)
206.9
DS* = 206.4 135.7(PI)
34.5
DS* = 49.7 23.1(PI)
103.4
DS* = 133.1 68.6(PI)
206.9
DS* = 192.1 95.8(PI)
17
CHAPTER 3. DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTS ON

SUBGRADE SOILS
3.1 Introduction
Field dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPT) were performed on subgrade soils at
seven road construction sites. For each test site, the tests were conducted at several different
locations. In order to measure in-situ soil densities and water contents, the nuclear gauge
was used for each test location where the DCP tests were conducted. For a laboratory
testing program, soil samples were obtained from the testing sites. A list of the laboratory
tests performed in this study is as follows:
(1)
grain size distribution tests;
(2)
atterberg limit tests for cohesive soils;
(3)
specific gravity tests;
(4)
minimum and maximum density tests for granular soils;
(5)
direct shear tests;
(6)
unconfined compression tests for cohesive soils.
The laboratory testing program conducted in this study aims at characterizing the
subgrade soils of the test sites as well as relating the measurement from the DCPT to
various soil parameters. Table 3.1 shows a description of the test sites in which DCPTs
were performed.
18
Table 3.1 Test sites for DCPT
Number
Location
Road
Station No.
Soil type
Hobart, IN
I-65
59+395
Clayey sand
Valpariso, IN
US 49
18+840, 18+846,
18+828 and 18+850
Well graded
sand with clay
Gary, IN
I-80/I-94
342+000
Poorly graded
sand
US 35
2+150
Poorly graded
sand
Knox, IN
W. Lafayette, IN
Lindberg Road
1+189, 1+200,
1+211, 1+222,
1+233, 1+245,
1+256 and 1+269
Clayey sand
Lebanon, IN
I-65/County
Road 100E
72+137
Clayey sand
Bainbridge
US36
10+505, 10+506,
10+722, 10+724
and 10+577
Clayey sand
19
3.2 Reconstruction Site of I-65 in Hobart, IN
Field DCP tests were performed on subgrade soils at the I-65 road construction
site in Hobart, Indiana. Construction at the site was to rebuild the existing road and replace
old pavement. Since the project did not include replacement of the subgrade soils, the tests
were done on the existing subgrade soils exposed after removing the old pavement. Five
DCP tests were conducted at several different locations around station 59+395. For each
testing location, in-situ soil densities and moisture contents were also measured using the
nuclear gauge at depths of 5.1 cm (2 in), 15.2 cm (6 in), and 30.5 cm (12 in) from the soil
surface.
Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1 show in-situ total and dry soil densities and moisture
contents measured from the nuclear gauge. DCPT logs are shown in Figure 3.2 through
Figure 3.6.
The laboratory tests were performed to characterize the soils of test site. A sieve
analysis and Atterberg limit test were conducted. The soils specific gravity (GS) was
determined to be 2.71. Figure 3.7 shows the particle size distribution from the result of
sieve analysis. The liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) are 23.3 and 17.2 respectively.
The plastic index (IP) is 6.1. The soil is a clayey sand (SC).
The relationships of dry density, moisture content and the penetration index (PI)
are shown in Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 respectively.
Unconfined compression tests were conducted in the laboratory on a sample with
similar dry density and moisture content to those tested to those tested in the field. A PI
value for a corresponding dry unit weight can be obtained from the results of the field
20
DCPT. According to the results of Lee (1997), the relationship between resilient modulus
(Mr) and stress in psi at 1% axial strain in an unconfined compressive test is as follows,
Mr =695.4 (su)1.0% 5.93 [(su)1.0%]2

The Mr can be estimated from (su)1.0% using this equation. Table 3.3 shows the results of the
unconfined compression test and the corresponding penetration index for a given moisture
content and dry density.
21
gauge for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN
Test No.
Depth
(cm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Total unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Dry unit
weight
(kN/m3)
5.1
12.2
22.1
19.7
15.2
14.6
21.2
18.5
30.5
13.6
21.9
19.3
Average
13.5
21.7
19.1
5.1
9.5
22.8
20.8
15.2
9.8
22.6
20.6
30.5
9.3
22.6
20.7
Average
9.5
22.7
20.7
5.1
12.4
21.7
19.3
15.2
11.7
21.4
19.2
30.5
11.3
21.9
19.7
Average
11.8
21.7
19.4
5.1
10.5
22.3
20.2
15.2
10.2
22.4
20.3
30.5
9.8
22.5
20.5
Average
10.2
22.4
20.3
5.1
10.6
22.3
19.8
15.2
10.5
21.9
19.8
30.5
10.1
21.8
20.2
Average
10.4
22.0
19.9
22
Table 3.3 Result of Unconfined Compressive Test and corresponding Penetration

Index from field DCPT for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(kN/m2)
su at 1% strain
(kN/m2)
Resilient
Modulus
(kN/m2)
Penetration
Index
(mm/blow)
18.4
205.6
55.89
36180.0
10.2
19.0
598.3
274.7
126139.8
10.2
22.0
332.8
269.8
125027.1
5.1
Soil Density(kN/m
Dry Density
(kN/m3)
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
Total Density
Dry Density
10
15
Mo isture Co ntent ( %)
20
Figure 3.1 Total and Dry Soil Densities and Moisture Contents measured from nuclear
gauge for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN
23
Penetration index (mm/blow)

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 3.2 Log of DCPT for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN (Station: 59+395, Test No. 1)

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
24

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
25

0
10
15
20
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
Percent Passing by Weight(% )
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
0.1
Particle Diameter(mm)
Figure 3.7 Particle size distribution for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN
0.01
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
26
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
18
19
20
21
Dry Density ( kN/ m )
Penetratio n Index
( mm/ blo w)
for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
7
11
13
15
Figure 3.9 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index from
field DCPT for the site of I-65 in Hobart, IN
27
3.3 Reconstruction Site of US49 in Valpariso, IN
Field DCP Tests were performed on subgrade soils at a US49 road construction
site in Valpariso, Indiana. Construction at the site was to rebuild the existing road and
replace old pavement. The subgrade soil was compacted, since it was covered by the old
US49 road. The tests were conducted on the existing subgrade soil exposed after removing
the old pavement. Four DCP tests were performed at different locations (Station 18+850,
18+840, 18+846 and 18+828). For each testing location, in-situ soil densities and moisture
contents were measured with a nuclear gauge at the same location as the DCPT. The values
were evaluated at the depths of 5.1 cm (2 in), 15.2 cm (6 in), and 30.5 cm (12 in) from the
soil surface. Table 3.4 and Figure 3.10 show in-situ total and dry soil densities and moisture
contents measured from the nuclear gauge. The DCPT logs are shown in Figure 3.11
through Figure 3.14.
To characterize the soils of the test site, the laboratory tests were conducted. A
sieve analysis and Atterberg limit test were performed. The liquid limit (LL) and plastic
limit (PL) are 24.1 and 16.4 respectively. The plastic index (IP) is 7.7. The particle size
distribution from the result of the sieve analysis is shown in Figure 3.15. The coefficient of
curvature (Cc) and uniformity (Cu) are 1.28 and 11.0 respectively. The specific gravity is
2.65. The soil is a well graded sand with clay (SW-SC).
The relationships between dry density, moisture content and the penetration index
(PI) are shown in Figure 3.16 and Figure 3.17 respectively.
To correlate the penetration index and soil strength, unconfined compression tests
were conducted in the laboratory. The samples were prepared with similar dry density and
28
moisture content to those measured in the field. The measured value of unconfined
compressive strength, su at 1% strain and resilient modulus calculated using Lees equation
(1997) were obtained. From the result of field DCPT, the corresponding PI values with
similar dry unit weight were obtained. The results of unconfined compression tests are
shown in Table 3.5.
29
gauge for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN
Test No.
Depth
(cm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Total unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Dry unit weight

(kN/m3)
5.1
11.8
20.1
18.0
15.2
11.4
20.8
18.7
30.5
10.7
21.2
19.2
Average
11.3
20.7
18.6
5.1
10.8
20.5
18.5
15.2
10.6
21.1
19.1
30.5
10.2
21.6
19.5
Average
10.5
21.1
19.0
5.1
12.1
21.1
18.8
15.2
12.6
21.3
18.9
30.5
12.3
21.5
19.2
Average
12.3
21.3
18.9
5.1
9.3
16.6
15.2
15.2
8.5
18.6
17.2
30.5
7.5
19.6
18.2
Average
8.4
18.3
16.9
30

Index from field DCPT for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN
Dry Density
(kN/m3)
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(kN/m2)
su at 1% strain
(kN/m2)
Resilient
Modulus
(kN/m2)
Penetration
Index
(mm/blow)
18.6
261.0
75.5
47624.0
20.3
19.0
487.7
198.4
104103.8
10.2
17.1
206.2
113.7
67936.1
15.0
Soil Density (kN/m
24
22
20
Total Density
Dry Density
18
16
14
12
5
10
nuclear gauge for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN
31

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 1)

0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 2)
32

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 3)

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 4)
33
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
0.1
0.01
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
Figure 3.15 Particle size distribution for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
14
16
18
20
3
for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN
Penetratio n Index
( mm/ blo w)
34
28
23
18
13
8
8
10
11
12
13
DCPT for the site of US49 in Valpariso, IN
35
3.4 Reconstruction Site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN
Field DCP Tests were performed on subgrade soils at an I-80/I94 road

construction site in Gary, Indiana. Construction at the site was to rebuild the existing road
and replace old pavement. Therefore, the subgrade soils were compacted. Five DCP
tests were performed at different locations around station 342+000. In-situ soil densities
and moisture contents were measured with a nuclear gauge at the same location as the
DCPT. The values were evaluated at the depths of 5.1 cm (2 in), 15.2 cm (6 in), and 30.5
cm (12 in) from the soil surface.
Table 3.6 and Figure 3.18 show in-situ total and dry soil densities and moisture
contents measured by the nuclear gauge. The DCPT logs are shown in the Figure 3.19
through Figure 3.23.
To characterize the tested soil, a sieve analysis, specific gravity and minimum and
maximum density tests were conducted in laboratory. The result of the sieve analysis is
shown in Figure 3.24. The coefficient of curvature (Cc) and uniformity (Cu) are 1.5 and
1.67 respectively. The soil is classified as a poorly graded sand (SP). The specific gravity is
2.65. The relative density (Dr) is commonly used to indicate the in- situ denseness or
looseness of granular soil. From the laboratory tests, the minimum dry density, with an emax
of 0.88, is 13.8 kN/m3 and the maximum dry density, with an emin of 0.56, is 16.7 kN/m3.
The tube method was used for the minimum dry density test. The average dry density of the
site is 16.6 kN/m3. From these results, the Dr value is 98%. The soils of the site were well
compacted.
Figure 3.25 and Figure 3.26 show the relationship between dry density, moisture
36
content and the penetration index (PI) respectively.

Direct shear tests were performed in the laboratory corresponding to the field DCP
tests No. 3,4, and 5. The samples were prepared with the same average moisture content
and dry unit weight for each test location. The results of direct shear tests are shown in
Table 3.7 and Figure 3.27. The contours of the relationship between PI and shear strength
with different normal stress is shown in Figure 3.28.
37
gauge for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN
Test No.
Depth
(cm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Total unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Dry unit weight

(kN/m3)
5.1
15.0
17.6
15.4
15.2
13.6
18.6
16.4
30.5
11.7
18.9
17.0
Average
13.4
18.4
16.2
5.1
15.2
18.1
15.8
15.2
14.6
19.6
17.1
30.5
13.2
19.4
17.2
Average
14.3
19.0
16.7
5.1
15.6
17.9
15.5
15.2
15.4
18.6
16.1
30.5
15.8
19.2
16.6
Average
15.3
18.5
16.1
5.1
14.8
19.0
16.6
15.2
13.3
19.4
17.1
30.5
14.1
19.0
16.6
Average
14.0
19.1
16.8
5.1
7.1
18.0
16.8
15.2
7.1
18.6
17.3
30.5
6.5
18.6
17.5
Average
6.9
18.4
17.2
38
Table 3.7 Result of Direct Shear Test with different normal stress for the site
of I-80/I94 in Gary, IN
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Friction
Angle
()
Shear Strength (kN/m2)
Corresponding
Penetration
Index
(mm/blow)
Normal
Normal
stress (32.4 stress (95.2
kN/m2)
kN/m2)
Normal
stress
(189.0
kN/m2)
14.1
37.7
11.66
29.6
85.3
151.3
17.2
6.9
36.2
20.8
28.2
75.7
144.5
16.1
15.6
36.6
15.1
25.7
71.5
140.3
Soil Density (kN/m
16.8
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
Total Density
Dry Density
10
15
nuclear gauge for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN
39

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 1)

0
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 2)
40

0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 3)

0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 4)
41

0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 5)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
0.1
Figure 3.24 Particle size distribution for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN
0.01
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
42
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN
Penetratio n Index
( mm/ blo w)
32
27
22
17
12
7
5
9
11
13
15
17
DCPT for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN
Shear Strength (kN/m
43
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Test No.4
Test No.3
Test No.5
50
100
150
200
Vertic al Stress ( kN/ m )
Figure 3.27 Result of Direct Shear Test with different normal stress for the site of I80/I-94 in Gary, IN
Normal stress : 32.4 (kN/ m2)

Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
2
Shear Strength ( kN/ m )
for the site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN
44
3.5 Road Widening Construction Site of US35 in Knox, IN
Field DCP Tests were performed on subgrade soils at a US35 road widening
construction site in Knox, Indiana. Construction at the site was to rebuild the existing road
and replace old pavement. The tests were conducted on the existing subgrade soils exposed
after removing the old pavement. The subgrade soils were compacted. Five DCP tests were
performed at several different locations around station 2+150. Also in-situ soil densities and
moisture contents were measured using a nuclear gauge at depths of 5.1 cm (2 in), 15.2 cm
(6 in), and 30.5 cm (12 in) from the soil surface. In-situ total and dry soil densities and
moisture contents measured from the nuclear gauge are shown in Table 3.8 and Figure 3.29.
The DCPT logs are shown in Figure 3.30 through Figure 3.34.
Sieve analysis, specific gravity and minimum and maximum density tests were
performed to characterize the tested soil. Figure 3.35 shows the result of the sieve analysis.
The coefficient of curvature (Cc) and uniformity (Cu) are 1.26 and 2.67 respectively. The
soil is a poorly graded sand (SP). The specific gravity is 2.64. The minimum dry density is
13.9 kN/m3 with an emax of 0.86 and the maximum dry density is 17.3.7 kN/m3 with an emin
of 0.50. The tube method was used for the minimum dry density test. The average dry
density of the site is 17.18 kN/m3. From these results the relative density (Dr) is 98%. The
soils of the site were well compacted.
The relationship between the dry density, moisture contents and the penetration
index (PI) are shown in Figure 3.36 and Figure 3.37, respectively.
Direct shear tests were performed in the laboratory corresponding to the field DCP
tests Nos. 2,3 and 5. The samples were prepared with the same average moisture content
45
and average dry unit weight for each test location. Table 3.9 and Figure 3.38 show the result
of direct shear tests. The relationship between PI and shear strength with different normal
stresses is shown in Figure 3.39.
46
gauge for the site of US35 in Knox, IN
Test No.
Depth
(cm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Total unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Dry unit
weight
(kN/m3)
5.1
4.7
18.0
17.2
15.2
4.2
17.7
16.9
30.5
4.0
17.9
17.2
Average
4.3
17.9
17.1
5.1
6.7
17.5
16.4
15.2
6.0
19.5
18.4
30.5
5.9
19.9
18.8
Average
6.2
19.0
17.8
5.1
8.5
18.9
17.4
15.2
7.3
19.7
18.3
30.5
7.5
19.7
18.3
Average
7.7
19.4
18.0
5.1
13.2
19.2
17.0
15.2
13.2
19.5
17.2
30.5
12.3
19.3
17.2
Average
12.9
19.3
17.1
5.1
10.8
18.1
16.3
15.2
11.1
17.4
15.7
30.5
11.7
17.0
15.2
Average
11.2
17.5
15.7
47
Table 3.9 Result of Direct Shear Test with different normal stress for the site of US35
in Knox, IN
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Shear Strength (kN/m2)
Friction Corresponding
Angle
Penetration
Index
()
(mm/blow)
Normal
stress
(32.4
kN/m2)
Normal
stress
(95.2
kN/m2)
Normal
stress
(189.0
kN/m2)
17.9
6.2
34.2
18.2
28.1
70.1
134.5
18.0
7.8
37.8
50.3
28.8
73.8
149.8
15.7
11.2
33.5
25.1
21.9
68.3
126.2
Soil Density (kN/m
21
20
19
18
Total Density
Dry Density
17
16
15
14
0
3
6
9
12
15
nuclear gauge for the site of US35 in Knox, IN
48

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 3.30 Log of DCPT for the site of US35 in Knox, IN (Station: 2+150, Test No. 1)

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
49

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50

0
10
20
30
40
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
50

0
10
20
30
40
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
0.1
Figure 3.35 Particle size distribution for the site of US35 in Knox, IN
0.01
51
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
for the site of US35 in Knox, IN
Penetratio n Index
( mm/ blo w)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2
6
8
10
12
14
DCPT for the site of US35 in Knox, IN
Shear Strength (kN/m
52
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Test No. 2
Test No.3
Test No. 5
50
100
150
200
No rmal Stress ( kN/ m )
Figure 3.38 Result of Direct Shear Test with different normal stress for the site of
US35 in Knox, IN

Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
2
Shear Strength ( kN/ m )
for the site of US35 in Knox, IN
53
3.6 Reconstruction Site of Lindberg Road at West Lafayette, IN
Field DCP Tests were performed on subgrade soils at a reconstruction site on

Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, Indiana. Construction at the site was to rebuild the
existing road and replace old pavement. A clayey sand subgrade embankment was built on
the existing road. Eight DCP tests were conducted at several different locations (Station
1+189, 1+200, 1+211, 1+222, 1+233, 1+245, 1+256 and 1+269). Also, in-situ soil densities
and moisture contents were measured using the nuclear gauge for each testing location at
depths of 5.1 cm (2 in), 15.2 cm (6 in), and 30.5 cm (12 in) from the soil surface. Table 3.10
and Figure 3.40 show in-situ total and dry soil densities and moisture contents measured
with the nuclear gauge. The DCPT logs are shown in Figure 3.41 through Figure 3.48.
To characterize the soils of the test site, laboratory tests were performed. A
specific gravity test, sieve analysis and Atterberg limit test were conducted. The soils
specific gravity (GS) is 2.71. From the results of the sieve analysis, the particle size
distribution is shown in Figure 3.49. The liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) are 22.5
and 14.0 respectively from the Atterberg limits tests. The plastic index (IP) is 8.49. The
soil is a clayey sand (SC).
(PI) are shown in Figure 3.50 and Figure 3.51respectively.
The unconfined compression tests were conducted in the laboratory on samples
prepared with similar dry densities and moisture contents to the soil in the field. A
corresponding PI value with similar dry unit weight can be obtained from the result of the
field DCPT. Resilient modulus was calculated using Lees (1997) equation. Table 3.11
54
shows the unconfined compressive strength, su at 1% strain, resilient modulus and the
penetration index from the field DCPT for different dry density.
55
gauge for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN
Test No.
Depth
(cm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Total unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Dry unit
weight
(kN/m3)
5.1
11.7
18.2
16.3
15.2
10.1
21.6
19.6
30.5
9.1
24.7
22.6
Average
10.3
21.5
19.5
5.1
11.8
17.8
15.7
15.2
10.2
21.3
19.3
30.5
9.2
24.3
22.3
Average
10.4
21.1
19.1
5.1
10.8
18.4
16.6
15.2
10.0
21.1
19.2
30.5
8.2
24.1
22.2
Average
9.7
21.2
19.3
5.1
10.4
19.3
17.5
15.2
9.3
22.2
20.3
30.5
8.5
25.2
23.2
Average
9.4
22.2
20.3
5.1
12.2
19.1
17.0
15.2
10.6
21.6
19.5
30.5
9.1
24.8
22.8
Average
10.6
21.8
19.8
5.1
11.3
19.0
17.1
15.2
9.9
21.3
19.3
30.5
8.4
24.5
22.6
Average
9.9
21.6
19.7
continued
56
Test No.
Depth
(cm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Total unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Dry unit weight

(kN/m3)
5.1
11.2
18.9
17.0
15.2
10.0
21.6
19.6
30.5
8.8
24.8
22.8
Average
10.0
21.7
19.8
5.1
11.6
18.5
16.6
15.2
10.2
21.3
19.3
30.5
8.5
24.4
22.5
Average
10.1
21.4
19.5

Index from field DCPT for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN
Dry Density
(kN/m3)
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(kN/m2)
su at 1% strain
(kN/m2)
Resilient
Modulus
(kN/m2)
Penetration
Index
(mm/blow)
19.1
278.1
168.5
92749.7
21.9
19.4
419.3
210.3
108206.8
17.8
19.2
305.3
152.0
85830.5
15.2
57
Soil Density (kN/m
26.0
24.0
22.0
Total Density
Dry Density
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
13.0
nuclear gauge for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 3.41 Log of DCPT for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN (Station:
1+189, Test No. 1)
58

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
1+200, Test No. 2)

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
1+211, Test No. 3)
59

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
1+222, Test No. 4)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
1+233, Test No. 5)
60

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
1+245, Test No. 6)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
1+256, Test No. 7)
61

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
1+269, Test No. 8)
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Figure 3.49 Particle size distribution for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette,
IN
62
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
15
17
19
21
23
25
for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN
Penetratio n Index
( mm/ blo w)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
6
10
12
14
DCPT for the site of Lindberg Road in West Lafayette, IN
63
3.7 Reconstruction Site of I-65/County Road 100E in Lebanon, IN
Field DCP Tests were performed on subgrade soils at the I-65/County road 100E
construction site in Lebanon, Indiana. The project was for deck reconstruction and lane
widening of the county road 100E overpass. The tests were performed on the existing soil
after removing the old pavement. Five DCP tests were conducted at several different
locations around station 72+137. In-situ soil densities and moisture contents were measured
with a nuclear gauge for each testing location at depths of 5.1 cm (2 in), 15.2 cm (6 in), and
30.5 cm (12 in) from the soil surface. Table 3.11 and Figure 3.52 show in-situ total and dry
soil densities and moisture contents measured with the nuclear gauge. The DCPT logs are
shown in Figure 3.53 through Figure 3.57.
To characterize the tested soils, laboratory tests, such as a specific gravity, sieve
analysis and Atterberg limit test were conducted. The soils specific gravity (GS) is 2.69.
The result of the sieve analysis is shown in Figure 3.58 to evaluate a particle size
distribution. From the Atterberg limit test the liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) are
20.9 and 15.3, respectively, and the plastic index (IP) is 5.6. The soil is a clayey sand (SC).
(PI) are shown in Figure 3.59 and Figure 3.60, respectively.
The unconfined compression tests were conducted in the laboratory on samples,
which were prepared with similar dry densities and moisture contents to the soil in the field.
These densities and moisture contents were chosen to correspond to those tested with the
DCP. From Lees (1997) equation, a resilient modulus was calculated. Table 3.13 shows the
unconfined compressive strength, su at 1% strain, resilient modulus and the penetration
64
index from the field DCPT for different dry densities.
65
gauge for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN
Test No.
Depth
(cm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Total unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Dry unit
weight
(kN/m3)
5.1
14.6
19.6
17.1
15.2
12.8
21.0
18.6
30.5
13.0
21.4
19.0
Average
13.5
20.7
18.2
5.1
16.2
19.9
17.1
15.2
16.0
20.5
17.7
30.5
15.7
20.9
18.1
Average
16.0
20.4
17.6
10.2
13.7
20.7
18.2
15.2
12.5
21.6
19.1
30.5
12.5
22.2
19.7
Average
12.9
21.5
19.0
10.2
11.4
20.1
18.1
15.2
10.7
21.9
19.8
30.5
9.7
22.4
20.4
Average
10.6
21.5
19.4
10.2
11.5
21.2
19.0
15.2
11.3
21.5
19.4
30.5
11.2
22.2
20.0
Average
11.3
21.7
19.5
66

Index from field DCPT for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(kN/m2)
su at 1% strain
(kN/m2)
Resilient
Modulus
(kN/m2)
Penetration
Index
(mm/blow)
18.6
117.3
18.0
12205.4
17.8
19.0
283.8
94.0
57743.3
13.5
20.3
549.2
175.8
95688.9
29.3
Soil Density(kN/m
Dry Density
(kN/m3)
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
Total Density
Dry Density
10
15
20
nuclear gauge for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN
67

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
(Station: 72+137, Test No. 1)

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
68

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
69

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
Percent Passing by Weight(%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
0.1
0.01
Figure 3.58 Particle size distribution for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon,
IN
70
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
6
10
12
14
16
18
DCPT for the site of I65/County Road100E in Lebanon, IN
71
3.8 Reconstruction Site of US36 in Bainbridge, IN
Six field DCP Tests were conducted on subgrade soils at a reconstruction site of
US36 in Bainbridge, Indiana. Construction at the site was to rebuild the existing road and
replace old pavement. The clayey sand subgrade was exposed after removing the old
pavement. The top 2in of subgrade soil was cut down. The DCP tests were conducted at
several different locations (Stations No. 10+505, 10+506, 10+722, 10+724, 10+574 and
10+577). Also in-situ soil densities and moisture contents were measured using the nuclear
gauge for each testing location at depths of 5.1 cm (2 in), 15.2 cm (6 in), and 30.5 cm (12
in) from the soil surface. In-situ total and dry soil densities and moisture contents measured
from the nuclear gauge are shown in Table 3.14 and Figure 3.61. The DCPT logs are shown
in Figure 3.62 through Figure 3.67.
In the laboratory, a specific gravity test, sieve analysis and Atterberg limit test
were conducted. The soils specific gravity (GS) is 2.70. From the result of the sieve
analysis, the particle size distribution is shown in Figure 3.68. The liquid limit (LL) and
plastic limit (PL) are 34.8 and 15.6, respectively, from the Atterberg limit test. The plastic
index (IP) is 19.2. The soil is a clayey sand (SC).
Figure 3.69 and Figure 3.70 show the relationships between dry density, moisture
content and the penetration index (PI), respectively.
The unconfined compression tests were conducted in the laboratory on samples
prepared with similar dry densities and moisture contents to those tested with the DCP in
the field. Resilient modulus was calculated using Lees (1997) equation. Table 3.15 shows
the unconfined compressive strength, su at 1% strain, resilient modulus and the penetration
72
index from the field DCPT for different dry densities
73
gauge for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN
Test No.
Depth
(cm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Total unit
weight
(kN/m3)
Dry unit
weight
(kN/m3)
5.1
18.2
19.4
16.4
15.2
17.6
20.5
17.5
30.5
17.6
20.6
17.6
Average
17.8
20.2
17.2
5.1
12.9
19.8
17.5
15.2
12.1
20.2
18.0
30.5
12.4
20.5
18.2
Average
12.5
20.1
17.9
5.1
19.2
19.7
16.5
15.2
18.2
20.3
17.1
30.5
17.8
20.1
17.0
Average
18.4
20.0
16.9
5.1
18.2
20.3
17.2
15.2
17.4
20.5
17.5
30.5
18.6
20.2
17.0
Average
18.1
20.3
17.2
5.1
23.3
17.2
14.0
15.2
19.6
19.2
16.0
30.5
17.9
17.2
20.3
Average
20.3
17.9
16.8
5.1
16.5
20.0
17.2
15.2
16.9
20.2
17.3
30.5
16.5
20.3
17.4
Average
16.6
20.2
17.3
74

Index from field DCPT for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN
Dry Density
(kN/m3)
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(kN/m2)
su at 1% strain
(kN/m2)
Resilient
Modulus
(kN/m2)
Penetration
Index
(mm/blow)
17.6
151.5
30.1
20152.5
23.9
18.2
87.2
8.1
5583.1
17.78
19.6
168.4
33.0
21992.7
10.3
Soil Density(kN/m
21
20
19
Total Density
Dry Density
18
17
16
15
10
15
20
25
nuclear gauge for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN
75

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 3.62 Log of DCPT for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN (Station: 10+505, Test
No. 1)

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 2)
76

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 3)

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 4)
77

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 5)

0
10
20
30
40
50
Depth (cm)
10
20
30
40
50
No. 6)
Percent Passing by Weight(%)
78
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
0.1
0.01
Figure 3.68 Particle size distribution for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
13
15
17
19
21
for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN
79
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
7
12
17
22
27
DCPT for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN
80
3.9 Analysis of the Results from Field DCP and Laboratory Tests
The field DCP tests and laboratory tests done in this project were presented in
Sections 3.2 through 3.8. A relationship between dry density and moisture content based on
the data for the seven different sites is shown in Figure 3.71. The relationships between
penetration index, dry density and moisture content are shown in Figure 3.72 and Figure
3.73. To get a better correlation between penetration index and dry density, the dry density
of the clayey sand is normalized using w and the vertical effective stress. Figure 3.77
shows the relationship between dry density of clayey sand and penetration index where
d

w
R=
'V
p
A
The equation for the dry density was derived in terms of the PI as follows,
'V
d = 101.5 PI 0.14
pA
0.5
This equation can be used to predict d using PI value. The d value calculated from this
equation has an error range of 1.63 kN/m3. Note that, had we considered site-specific
correlations, the resulting correlations would be better, as suggested by the different
symbols for each site appearing in Figure 3.71. There is no clear relationship between d
and PI for well-graded or poorly-graded sand.
The unconfined compression tests that were conducted for clayey sand (I-65 site
in Hobart, Lindberg Road site in West Lafayette, I-65/County Road 100E site in Lebanon
and US36 site in Bainbridge, IN) and well graded sand with clay (US49 site in Valpariso,
81
IN) are shown in Figure 3.74. Figure 3.75 and Figure 3.76 show that the penetration index
decreases as either the unconfined compressive strength or (su)1.0% decrease. The resilient
modulus for soils from different sites was obtained using the Lee (1997) equation. Figure
3.76 shows the relationship between the resilient modulus and the penetration index. The
equation for the resilient modulus in terms of the PI was developed as follows,
Mr = -3279PI + 114100
where Mr=resilient modulus in kPa; and PI=penetration index in mm/blow.
This equation should be used carefully, since it is derived from scattered and limited data.
More data are needed to develop a complete database.
82
Dry Density (kN/m
24
I 65, Hobart
22
US 49
20
I 80 and 94
18
US 35
16
Lindberg
14
12
0
10
15
20
25
Figure 3.71 Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density
PenetrationIndex (mm/blow)
60
I 65, Hobart
US 49
50
I 80 and 94
40
US 35
30
Lindberg
US36
20
I 65, Lebanon
10
0
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
(8)
Figure 3.72 Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index
83
PenetrationIndex (mm/blow)
50
I 65, Hobart
45
US 49
40
I 80 and 94
35
US 35
30
Lindberg
25
US36
20
I 65, Lebanon
15
10
(8)
5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Mois ture Content ( %)
Figure 3.73 Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index
30
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
25
I65, Hobart
US49
Lindberg
I65, Lebanon
US36
6
(6)
20
15
10
5
0
0
200
400
600
Unco nfined Co mpressive
2
Strength ( kN/ m )
800
Figure 3.74 Relationship between Unconfined Compressive Strength and Penetration

Index
84
30
I65, Hobart
20
US49
15
Lindberg
10
US36
Penetration Index
(mm/blow)
25
I65, Lebanon
0
0
100
200
300
(6)
s u at 1 . 0 % strain ( kN/ m )
Resilient Modulus (kN/m
Figure 3.75 Relationship between su at 1.0% strain and Penetration Index
y = - 3278. 8x + 114100
140000
120000
I65, Ho b art
US49
Lind b erg
I65, Leb ano n
US36
6
( 6)
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
10
20
30
Penetra tio n Ind ex (m m / b lo w)
Figure 3.76 Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Penetration Index
85
y = - 0.1388x + 1.5174
1.9
Log R
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
Log PI
1.5
Figure 3.77 Relationship between normalized Dry density and Penetration Index
86
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions
(1)
Field DCP Tests were performed at seven sites. Four sites contained clayey sands,
one contained a well graded sand with clay and two contained a poorly graded sand. For
each test location, in-situ soil density and moisture contents were measured using a nuclear
gauge at three different depths. The relationship between the soil properties and the
penetration index were examined. Though the data shows considerable scatter, a trend
appears to exist, particularly if each site is considered separately, the penetration index
decreases as the dry density increases and slightly increases as moisture content increases.
It may be possible to improve the correlation by normalizing the quantities in a different
way and by obtaining more data.
(2)
equation for the dry density was derived in terms of the PI as follows:
'V
d = 101.5 PI 0.14
pA
0.5
where PI = penetration index in mm/blow; and pA = reference stress (100kPa).

This equation can be used to predict d from the measured PI value. The actual d will be in
a range defined by the calculated d 1.63 kN/m3.
87
(3)
To investigate the relationship between the shear strength of poorly graded sand
and the penetration index, direct shear tests were performed on samples obtained from the
field. The results of the direct shear tests also show considerable scatter.
(4)
For clayey sands and well-graded sands with clay classified in accordance with
the United Classification System (sandy loam classified in accordance with INDOT
standard specifications Sec. 903), unconfined compression tests were conducted. The test
results show some correlation with the penetration index (PI). It was observed that PI
decreases as unconfined compressive strength increases. Additionally, the resilient modulus
was calculated from su at 1.0% strain using the Lee (1997) equation. The following
correlation was developed between Mr and PI:
Mr=-3279PI + 114100
where Mr=resilient modulus in kPa; and PI=penetration index in mm/blow
This relationship should be used with caution since it is derived from a very weak
correlation based on highly scattered data for different sites. There is a need for further
study to gather sufficient data to refine this relationship into a reliable equation.
88
4.2 Recommendations
(1)
equation for the dry density in terms of PI can be used for predicting d using field DCP
tests.
(2)
Since such predictions using the DCPT are subject to considerable uncertainty,
DCPT should be performed for compaction control in combination with a few conventional
test methods, such as the nuclear gage. These can be used to anchor or calibrate the DCPT
correlation for specific sites, reducing the uncertainty in the predictions. Site-specific
correlations do appear to be of better quality.
(3)
The DCPT should not be used in soil with gravel. Unrealistic PI values could be
obtained and the penetrometer shaft could be bent.
89
LIST OF REFERENCES
Ayers, M. E., Thompson, M.R. and Uzarski, D. R. (1989), Rapid Shear Strength Evaluation
of in situ Granular Materials, Transportation Research Record 1227, pp134-146.
Coonse, J. (1999), Estimating California Bearing Ratio of COHESIVE piedmont Residual

Soil using the Scala Dynamic Cone Penetrometor, Masters thesis, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, N.C.
Ese, Dag, Myre, Jostein, Nos, Per Magne, and Vaernes, Einar. (1994), the Use of Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer (DCP) for road strengthening design in Norway, Proc., Int. Conf. on
Bearing Capacity of Rd. and Airfield. pp3-22.
Gabr, M. A., Hopkins, K., Coonse, J. and Hearne, T., (2000), DCP Criteria for Performance
Evaluation of Pavement Layers, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
Nov.2000, pp141-148.
Harison, A. (1987), Correlation between California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer Strength Measurement of Soils, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrg, Part2 pp832-844.
Kleyn, E.G. (1975), the Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Transvaal Roads
Department, Report No. L2/74, Pretoria.
90
Livneh, M. (1987), the Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Determining the Strength of
Existing Pavements and Subgrade, Proc. 9th Southeast Asia Geotechnical Conference,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Livneh, M. (1989), Validation of Correlations between a number of Penetration Tests and in

situ California Bearing Ratio Tests, Transportation Research Record 1219, pp56-67.
Livneh, M, Ishai, I. and Livneh, N. A. (1994), Effect of Vertical Confinement on Dynamic

Cone Penetrometer Strength Values in Pavement and Subgrade Evaluations, Transportation
Research Record 1473, pp.1-8.
Luo, X., Salgado, R. and Altschaeffl, A., (1998), Dynamic Cone Penetration Test to Access
the Mechanical Properties of Subgrade Soil, Indiana Department of Transportation, Report
No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/13.
Scala, A.J. (1956), Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using Cone
Penetrometers, Proc. 2nd Australian-New Zealand Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., pp.
73.

Full Text

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Full Text

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TECHNICAL Summary

Technology Transfer and Project Implementation Information

TRB Subject Code:62-7 Soil Foundation Subgrades

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for

a nuclear gauge. However, the use of the

methods, such as the nuclear gage. These can be

1) Field DCP Tests were performed at seven

INDOT Division of Research

West Lafayette, IN 47906

contained a poorly graded sand. For each test

where PI = penetration index in mm/blow; and

accordance with INDOT standard specifications

62-7 07/02 JTRP-2002/20

Indiana Department of Transportation

INDOT Division of Research

West Lafayette, IN 47906

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment

8. Performing Organization Report No.

Rodrigo Salgado and Sungmin Yoon

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Joint Transportation Research Program

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Indiana Department of Transportation

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

17. Key Words

18. Distribution Statement

subgrade, dynamic cone penetration test, DCPT, cone

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

21. No. of Pages

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment

Joint Transportation Research Program

Problem Statement ......................................................................................................................... 2

Research Objective ........................................................................................................................ 3

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST AND ITS APPLICATION........................ 4

Description of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) ................................................ 4

Relationship between Penetration Index (PI) and CBR Values ................................... 9

Relationship between PI and Compaction Properties ................................................... 10

PI Shear Strength Relationship ........................................................................................... 14

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTS ON SUBGRADE SOILS...................... 17

Reconstruction Site of I-65 in Hobart, IN ........................................................................... 19

Reconstruction Site of US49 in Valpariso, IN.................................................................... 27

Reconstruction Site of I-80/I-94 in Gary, IN ...................................................................... 35

Road Widening Construction Site of US35 in Knox, IN ............................................... 44

Reconstruction Site of Lindberg Road at West Lafayette, IN .................................... 53

Reconstruction Site of I-65/County Road 100E in Lebanon, IN................................ 63

Reconstruction Site of US36 in Bainbridge, IN ................................................................ 71

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 86

LIST OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................. 89

nuclear gauge for the site of US36 at Bainbridge, IN ............................................ 73

Figure 2.1 Structure of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer ............................................................. 6

Test No. 4)............................................................................................................. 76

In geotechnical and foundation engineering in-situ penetration tests have been

where PI = penetration index in mm/blow; and pA = reference stress (100kPa).

obtained and the penetrometer shaft could be bent.

In geotechnical and foundation engineering, in-situ penetration tests have been

In the DCPT, however, a

the application of the DCPT is further investigated.

1.2 Problem Statement

Present practice in determining the adequacy of a compacted subgrade is to